This is a topic that comes up again and again (and I searched the forums before deciding to actually create a new thread since this hasn't been brought up since early this year) but a recent experience at one of the Cape Town meetups reminded me just how important it is to keep talking about it. A team presented a zombie fighting game where the main characters were ladies who were dressed more like models than action heroes. Apparently, the male avatars would be similarly sexualised in representation.
More than one person brought this up as a problem but the team dismissed this one the basis that the designer who had designed them was female and that there was nothing that they could see wrong with it. Also, it was apparently for humour, if I remember correctly.
Firstly, it saddened me to find out that a woman had bought into the female stereotyping to such a degree that when given the opportunity to design female leads, she chose a hypersexualised route.
Secondly, the idea that this kind of representation is not harmful in any way was infuriating. I want to share the following link which does a great job of summarising the research on the effects on hypersexualised avatars on females (and presumably, a similar effect would probably true of having hypersexualised male avatars).
http://dorkshelf.com/2013/11/01/thought-bubble-its-not-just-a-game-women-and-sexualized-avatars/
More than one person brought this up as a problem but the team dismissed this one the basis that the designer who had designed them was female and that there was nothing that they could see wrong with it. Also, it was apparently for humour, if I remember correctly.
Firstly, it saddened me to find out that a woman had bought into the female stereotyping to such a degree that when given the opportunity to design female leads, she chose a hypersexualised route.
Secondly, the idea that this kind of representation is not harmful in any way was infuriating. I want to share the following link which does a great job of summarising the research on the effects on hypersexualised avatars on females (and presumably, a similar effect would probably true of having hypersexualised male avatars).
http://dorkshelf.com/2013/11/01/thought-bubble-its-not-just-a-game-women-and-sexualized-avatars/
Note: Bolding is my own. For emphasis. Because that's a fucking terrifying thing.The way women are sexualized and objectified in video games has been linked in scientific research to things like self-objectification, rape myth acceptance, the acceptance of violence against women, and even a greater likelihood of sexual harassment on behalf of male players (a huge “no duh” to any woman who’s ever played a video game online).
Comments
Saw an ad for some deodorant for women where at the end, the subject is walking past a coffee shop where some good-looking dude reading the "Financial Times" glances up at her and checks her out. I feel like a pillock having to even explain why this is bad.
Not to be 'that guy', but having young men exposed to the male ideal constantly can (and is) AS damaging as doing it to women. When every action hero has a 6 pack, huge arms, shaved head, and a body that not even seasoned athletes can maintain for more than a month - what sort of image are we projecting to young PEOPLE?
I think that separating this into a 'woman vs men' thing is wrong, and instantly makes people take sides. Its an issue that effects ALL genders.
/devils advocate mode off. :)
Secondly, please note that in my post I mentioned how this is presumably a problem for males and how I was equally upset that part of the game on display at CPT meetup would have hypersexualised male avatars.
Also, note how the article linked indicates that the hypersexualised female avatars lead to more abuse of female players from male players. That's how hypersexualised female avatars are affecting you. So the damaging effects of these avatars are not limited to simply damaging the egos, or self esteem of female players, but extend to altering male behaviour towards female players.
Then please also read this: http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/
I actually have a lot of problems with the Dove ads. For one, the original campaign which taunted itself as showing beautiful women of "all shapes and sizes" still had a very stringent list for what they required for this filming. No tattoos or scars and "beautiful arms and legs". So, you know, not exactly "everyone". And, we do have to remember, that ultimately, if everyone was beautiful, they would go out of business. So the aim of those ads is still about undermining self confidence and making you buy a product :(
The more recent sketches campaign is more eloquently taken apart here : http://www.eatthedamncake.com/2013/04/17/the-problem-with-the-dove-real-beauty-sketches-campaign/
To this day, advertisement fascinates me. However the only ones that really hold my attention are the bad ones.
But with film, you are stuck, in your seat, for 90/120 minutes, just staring at the actors. You see them head on, which I think, gives a lot more potential for the viewer to fantasize about the character, and wanting to be them.
It may be a bit offff topic, but oh welll.
Are there some ways I can change the structure of my arguments to contribute to the discussion better, and without making the "not all men" sort of argument? I might be a bit off when it comes to the exact definition of the "not all men" argument, but hopefully you can get my intention here.
I've been in a discussions on this sort of topic that don't have any actionable result, and I feel we need to try and find something actionable that will improve the state of affairs in the near future.
So back on topic: should we, as a community, be making more effort to make sure any games that come out of this community treat women with proper respect? Regarding the zombie game from the last CT meetup: should we have reacted differently? Should we have basically refused to give any other feedback until they agreed to fix their avatars? As an individual it's way too easy to make an on-the-spot decision that isn't positive in the long run, so some sort of stricter policy would be great I think.
Some understanding is warranted though, that when you are in a conversation with people who also abhors this behaviour (actually, especially then), there is lots of shame to deal with - on behalf of what has already been done... and sometimes the knee-jerk reaction people have is to become defensive and distance themselves from it - we all do it (male and female). This does not directly relate to them condoning anything or distancing them from the problem itself or even to them not doing whatever they can to also combat this issue - it is mostly just instinctual, unfortunately :-( and not having been exposed to oppression, or not having to defend yourself daily against prejudice, the heightened awareness is just not there as it should be. I don't condone "not all men" rationalisations at all - especially when intended to defend or reinforce male dominance or divert the conversation... I can just understand that the response is sometimes coming from a more primitive place as well... it's just hard to know when you are dealing with which :-(
Not sure though that I can fully agree though that we need to focus on "only" fixing things from a female perspective (although in the short term that is the main issue at hand and is causing the most damage - yes I fully agree) - I personally think that changing our behaviour in a modern society should be more oriented towards the complete de-sexualizing of males and females alike and opt for more fitting avatars for the theme at hand (effectively causing more sustainable change, and effectively taking this distasteful concept out of the running entirely) and just simply get with the freaking times (for crying out loud)... we are not living in the 20th century any more... Freud has been dead for a long time.. psychology has moved on... our society has surely changed.. our values and views on many things have as well - it's time we start updating our art and entertainment to reflect this...
I don't see why anybody would be comfortable with stats about half of the world's population thinking about their physical appearance something like once every 6 seconds on average (SO much wasted brainpower!), or about girls going on diets, wanting to wear makeup, and running up and down the stairs to lose weight before they're even teenagers.
The only two reasons I can think of for people being opposed to feminism are: (1) they're short-sighted and are unwilling to give up their short-term privilege for long-term human gain for everyone, or (2) they've encountered feminists in the past who have put forward their arguments very aggressively, and scared them off. I feel as if the latter happens very often. Feminists have been fighting this battle for so long that they find having to explain the same things over and over again exasperating, and sometimes they may debate to "win" rather than to be inclusive. I do think that there's a point where even though what is said is technically true, it's actually no longer helpful. I feel that the first kind are scumbags, but the second kind just needs to meet the right feminists. :P
--
In terms of art, it's pretty well-known amongst game artists that the longer you work on a male character, the better he looks. He looks grittier, and more chiselled and more manly, gets more personality. But with a female character, you have to learn to stop, because at some point, "adding more" makes her look rough, and less feminine/beautiful, and that's somehow a problem. Why should we perceive female characters as having to be beautiful, whereas male characters don't have to be beautiful because they can look bad-ass in so many other ways? "Beautiful" or "sexy" shouldn't be a female game avatar's default trait (unless that genuinely is their role in the game's narrative, but in that case there's a much bigger problem in the writing than there is in the aesthetic design).
And I think that that's a good place to start. What is her occupation, and what sort of characteristics do you ascribe to that? And if you can't break the barrier that allows you to think freely, then think about what his occupation is, and what sort of characteristics you'd then describe to him. (And realise that in the world we're working towards, you wouldn't have to think about it this way to design a balanced female character.)
The reason I believe this works is that we're often used to thinking about things from the point of view of a default male. When we design a man, "man" is default, and therefore boring or insufficient, so we make the man more interesting by giving him many other characteristics that make him deeper and more interesting. When we think about anyone who is non-male, non-heterosexual, non-white, non-healthy, we're still thinking about them with reference to the default person (who is male, white, heterosexual, etc.) The result is that, with women, the traits that are specifically not-male are exaggerated (hence giant breasts, tiny waists, even though reality has a huge variance of female bodies), or how gay men are often written to be super effeminate and camp (even though I'm willing to bet the majority of gay men are indistinguishable from heterosexual men in terms of appearance), and so on. The fact that a character is female shouldn't be her defining characteristic, and the aesthetic cues that define her shouldn't be focused on her sex.
So, your end of post with "what should we do?" is fantastic. I was very saddened that only 1 person at the meetup put up his hand and said that he was not okay with the way the women were represented. The response was "Oh, so you're one of those guys." The fact that no one else in the room stood up and said, actually, we're all those guys was pretty sad because the silence in the room implied that we were all okay with what was being said. Absolutely. Hypersexualisation of either gender is awful - however the ratio of this happening is heavily leaned towards the female gender.
The thing that we have control over - in order to affect media - is where we spend our money. Every time you buy a game that is basically sold on boob physics, then you're voting in favour of that kind of representation in media. Because people will produce whatever makes money.
If we stop buying games that don't have female leads that matter or hypersexualised female characters, we change the market. And, of course, here we have the opportunity to create our own games with our own characters, leads and representation.
The scariest thing for me is how often I design a game that has no female representation. I'm so used to not seeing women in games I play, I don't even put them in games I make. That was a great article, thanks for sharing.
That's entirely possible. It might also be the discomfort I feel is because my long held beliefs (and hence privilege) are being challenged - that is entirely a good thing. But maybe it's also because there is something missing from the conversation, which will lead to a more comprehensive and fuller understanding.
Something I feel that's missing is the acknowledgment that we are all complex human beings. Most of the dogma seems very binary to me. I struggle to embrace it because the implication is that I'm "a bad male". I understand where the #NotAllMen sentiment comes from. Even if it's entirely misguided, I think if both sides understood why that response happened there would be no need to talk about sides in the first place. Then again I understand why women are angry even talking about not all men diverts attention from the real issues.
----
In terms of the thread and the original question. Here is my rule of thumb - it's entirely reasonable for a female character to be sexualized - if it's important to her character and the narrative. In developing the character - ask yourself why she exhibits overt sexyness?
Is she really insecure? Does she spend hours everyday doing her hair and makeup because she is perfectionistic? Is she trying to hide from herself a deep abyss and gnawing feeling that she is unlovable? Is it because she had a very rough upbringing and exerting her sexual prowess was the only means in her life she found of exerting power and control. Does she allow herself to be sexually available because she wants to be loved and attention men pay her feels validating. Does this lead to a crash when those men then withdraw their affections? Does she dress sexy because she's hyper confident? Does this mean that actually she's a bit disconnected from her emotions and finds it difficult to connect with meaningful people in her life. Is she narcissistic? Is she simply blessed by the genetic lottery? Does she feel frustrated she has to rely on her sexiness in life? Does she use it anyway because she's resourceful and seeks to use every advantage available to her?
When you ask these questions, you get deeper characters AND a much more interesting story. Don't believe me, then explain why game of thrones is a compelling fantasy with such broad appeal? It's also important to ask the question in the other direction.
Take the token female soldier - Does she feel critically aware that she is the "only girl on the team"? Is she hyper competitive? Is this because she constantly feels the need to prove she's just as good as one of the boys? Does this make her tough as nails? Does this make her likely to want to dress sexy or dress "tough"? What is more likely to be a priority for her - spending vast amounts of time preening her physical appearance or working on the things she thinks will put her at a competitive advantage? In fact would she not dress down because being viewed as a girl would make her feel vulnerable and weak? Would she actually have a great deal of difficulty connecting with her sexuality? Would she take refuge in being called a bitch because this makes her seem tough, even though on some level this a defense system and being disconnected from her femininity is causing a her a great deal of unresolved emotional pain?
Or is she just perfect, and manages to be the image of beauty no matter what she's doing? Is she a fantasy?
And I'm not saying there should be no "sexy" characters whatsoever. It's just that part of the problem is the sheer number of sexy female characters that exist in games, so having yet another one is kind of adding to the problem whatever the narrative reasons.
There are so many other ways to make characters interesting. There are so many different treatments that have been given to male characters that don't focus on sex. It would be nice if women around the same ratio of treatment.
Sexuality is core part of the human experience. Art that doesn't try engage with that is a poor art form. Limiting yourself because the medium has done a poor job so far is not a reason to stop. It's a reason to do better! Gone home was about the teenage identity and lesbian sexual awakening - one of my favourite narrative experiences in games.
Why did they not have sexualized characters? Why wasn't there lesbian sex scenes to perve over? It's because the writers created believable characters!
People are starting to kick up a fuss - Ubisoft, Nintendo are all being called out. Education makes a difference. But what can we do as game makers? We can aspire to make better art. We can show people art with depth is possible. We can make people hungry for this art. I think that's a very powerful guilt free way to get the message across.
But I don't think @Elyaradine objected to portraying sexuality.
In your previous post you used the word "sexualized" which I don't think means quite the same thing as "sexuality" in the current context. I'm certain @Elyaradine wasn't saying don't represent sexuality.
In your previous post you did seem to say that it's okay to decide to make a sexualized female character so long as you then come up with a narrative that makes that character believable.
I'm sure there is a way to pull that off, but given the way that games marketing works, it seems to me like it'd be playing with fire, and the character wouldn't resonate with the players that buy the game, and would turn off the players that the character might resonate with. I think it's more complicated than making it believable.
Although I might have been reading your post wrong?
I'm not trying to say "@TheFuntastic you're wrong!". But rather, I think gender representation is really difficult territory, and representing overtly sexualized females well ("sexualized" in the same sense as it is used in the OP) has very very few precedents in games (there was a character in Uncharted 2 that received some praise, though she wasn't that overt by gaming standards).
I was in a computer store last week, buying mousepads. One of the pads had Kerrigan from SC2 on it and the store attendant man pointed out how cool that was. I told him that, while I'm a huge Starcraft fan, I didn't like Kerrigan in SC2 much - even though I play Zerg. He asked me why. I explained that I really didn't like how they sexualised and damseled her in SC2 in completely unnecessary ways. I was sad that such a badass, complex character had been retrofitted with high heels (for maximum sex-appeal to what, zerglings?) and then on top of that they rewrote her background to be all about a relationship with Raynor that wasn't anything beyond a weird creepy fantasy in Jim's head in the first games. I wanted the old awesome, conflicted, galaxy-burning for sheer revenge Kerrigan back.
He sort of looked at me and said that he reckoned the Overmind must have been a bit of a pervert, then he chuckled.
I was sad... I guess I should have said that I wished the new devs were less perverted or something, but I never know what to do in situations like that.
What if is just the way some people see this, because of how their thought patterns happen to be (I'm not taking a jab at you @dislekcia, if anything I am in that boat, and am still sure most other male gamers are). What if thought, as men would think John Rambo or Blade or who ever else is hardcore, some gamer girls may think the girl in tight leather, without guns for arms (though I am sure this has been argued against here too), and some high heels are just hardcore, and not sexy or sexualised in any way?
I totally get the point thought. I mean, this is seriously (insert nice word here) unnecessary: http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-most-ridiculous-female-bodies-in-video-games.php
But we should also be careful not to take it too far. Gender differences exist, and are beautiful. They can be emphasized without being sexualised.
Am I saying anything new? No? ok :(
*returns to cave
1. A character that references years of aspirational self-image from a personal perspective and power (to affect the world, to have your will be important) fantasies is the same as...
2. A representation of a character that references years of shame-based self-image comparison whose key factor is not the power that character can exert upon the world, but the value of their appearance according to other observers, whose will in the game world is not only irrelevant, but actively ignored by other characters in the story.
Because I keep hearing people make this same point and it's wrong. I can understand that it might not make sense when someone argues from a feminist perspective that "male representation in games is a power fantasy and not nearly as problematic", but they're right. The way male characters are represented (in general, specifically straight, white ones) is not in a way to set them up to be ogled, they're supposed to be characters that players identify with. Male representation doesn't reference years upon years of sexist culture, of being told that your gender can't do something, of being constantly judged on your acceptance of other people's ownership of your body, of being constantly expected to be grateful for sexual advances, of having to socially sideline your own desires to appease potentially violent humanoids that will nevertheless blame you if they attack you.
No. Instead a man can look at a big, burly, hyper-powerful video game character and think "Man, I want to be that guy" because that guy seems cool. Women hardly ever get to even consider anything like that, because they're fundamentally not coming from the same place at all and it's painfully obvious that female characters are usually not even meant for them to even think of identifying with: Those characters are only allowed in because they're X "hot" or Y "one of the guys", and there are so few of them (there's some scary research that shows that a crowd containing somewhere just north of 30% women is perceived BY ALL GENDERS as being over 50% women, that's how unused to actually seeing women we are as a culture!) and their desires and motivations hardly ever matter. Most of the time they're just killed to give a mandude a reason to kill other people, yay...
No. That comparison really can't be made and I'm not going off at you about this, I'm just trying to maybe inject some awareness of the huge weirdness of people asking that "as devil's advocate". Perhaps this comic will help illustrate what I'm on about, and it only touches one aspect of representation, objectification:
Or, y'know, look at it from the other way around: What, exactly, is aspirational about being apparently sexy? Like, why would you want people to feel more entitled to your body. What useful skill are you getting better at there? Sexiness requires other people to find you sexy, right? How does that help your character be better in a game world?
I feel as if that's potentially part of the problem. That's pretty much what I described above in the concept of "otherizing" people by referencing them in terms of the default group, and drawing attention to what these differences are. That's the thought behind women having exaggerated "feminine" characteristics (which I believe are societal constructs), and exaggerating female body parts, etc. because of how these are focused on what makes a woman not a man. So emphasizing it is historically part of the problem, and sexualising it just makes it worse.
But I'm not saying "Don't ever write/design that kind of thing, ever!" I'm just saying that it's something that has stuffed people up through its repetition and ubiquity over decades. If you want to mitigate this risk, one of the best things you can do is to work with people who are very diverse in their backgrounds (different sexes, genders, races, etc.), and people who are familiar with and are sensitive to these kinds of media studies. If you absolutely have to emphasise these differences (despite the huge minefield you're entering), you could do it in a way that exposes them, that reminds the world how wrong these things are, and encourages them to help change things.
Media is a two-sided thing. It's a product of society, but it has the power to affect society too. What you make makes a difference, whether you intended it or not. Understanding and becoming more sensitive to how what you make can fix or worsen inequality in the world is something worth thinking about. :)
The reason why I brought it up, is that my ex-girlfriend legitimately thought Kerrigan was a cool character. I don't play SC so I can't argue the points you argued. Heck I don't think she played SC2, she just watched videos and concluded that she wanted to be like Kerrigan. And I know for a fact she was brought up in a good home with feminist views. I stayed with them for a while and I could see it. So my point is not that the issue doesn't exist, rather where we draw the line and say this is an issue. Because if we draw the line wrong, and say that everything on that side of the line should be like we think is right (on our side of the line), we may become sexist I think. And maybe this sums up the issue completely. There is a complete lack of characters for girls to identify with, so maybe they can simply choose what they feel is the best of the bunch (even though these ARE aimed at ogling men). And I agree that this is something that needs to be fixed. We should just not overdo it :)
@Elyaradine All I'm afraid of is that this "otherizing" becomes sexist on our part. It is not OK to say, "hey, that girl's view is different from mine. Poor girl, surely she would benefit from having the same outlook as me, lets enforce this!" Feminism is does not mean women want to (or should) become men, or become like men. And I am arguing that this view is fundamentally sexist, since there is nothing wrong with being a woman or having womanly traits. And though I probably didn't word myself properly last night, this is the core of what I am trying to say. Maybe emphasize is the wrong word, but there is no need to hide the differences. And I don't mean draw excessively large breasts on women or anything, or make them all look like a damsel-in-distress. Just that women don't need to be drawn like men. And I know this is not something that needs to be said to you as I've seen you draw womanly women, I'm just saying that the difference is there, and saying we should hide is is like telling women that they should not be proud of those difference. I am in no way condoning that they should be portrayed as sexual beings, or that they should be portrayed as weak. And it's exactly this statement that scares me. I could bring my current girlfriend in to get her opinion. She is in a family with two daughters and a proud mother with very strong values. They are all feminists. They are clearly very different to what I am as a man and there is nothing wrong with it. We are all aware of the differences and openly acknowledge it, and the difference is absolutely beautiful. They do not want to be like men, and are perfectly content and proud of what defines them as women, and so am I! Very true, enough said :)
There appears to have been a misunderstanding that I'd like to correct though: The playable characters were not designed by a female developer, merely a (admittedly small) group of ladies were approached for impressions prior to the demo.
Well, this is really exciting news! I look forward to seeing any new developments :) I'm an avid fan of killing zombies ;)
Watch the documentary, brilliantly done.
http://m.tickld.com/x/next-time-someone-says-women-arent-victims-of-harassment-show-them
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CtyOC6ayKoU
"this" isn't wrong.
The fact that there is nothing but "this" around <--- that is wrong.
We can have games that promote wealth, but there should also be games that promote love, or charity, or philanthropy, etc.
So this kind of conversation, to my mind, is more a reminder that there is more than "this" in the world and that we should consider things other than "this".
NOW.
The flip side of this is whether market forces will support games that support charity, philanthropy, etc. I do think our society is maturing towards that end, what with all this awareness going on, but that obviously remains to be seen. And it takes ACTION to prove or disprove that. Making stuff that play in realms other than "this" popular thing.
I really want to talk about making stuff other than that popular thing. I keep hearing about this complaint and that complaint but very little about making stuff right. This Ghibli example is definitely in the right direction.
I think his work with Studio Ghibli is inspirational (in many ways) and contains a lot of excellent examples of female representation (and a lot of other good things besides). And his work is particularly interesting as a counter example to Disney's.
[begin rant] I was rather upset that "Frozen" won the Academy award for best animated picture instead of "The Wind Rises". (Having said that, Frozen was progressive for a Disney movie and I applaud that, just not progressive by modern standards, and The Wind Rises is great in ways Disney movies never come close to) [end rant]
"On hearing Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein would try to cut Princess Mononoke to make it more marketable, one of Studio Ghibli's producers sent an authentic katana with a simple message: "No cuts"."
Wow, I'm kind of floored by how awfully American film publishing behaved.
The American Warriors of the Wind is kind of confusing (to say the least) if you are familiar with the film.
I would add a point that I still don't think that Frozen is *amazing* or *genre changing* but it is a move in the right direction. I mean, there's still a lot of reliance on male characters throughout and the second lead lady is...well...dumb (adorably and lovably so, mind, but still). So, it's not really moving too much along...just the ending that "true love" is about sisters. But your final scene still has the second sister getting married (and therefore, having fulfilled the disney tradition of ensuring the princess meets her prince etc).
Studio Ghibli is obviously different to Disney when it comes to the portrayal of women, but I also believe they have different motivations/methods when it comes to product and profit.
The only common aspect really, is that they both produce animation as a product... but the rest seems like Apples:Oranges to me...
You might as well compare Playboy to the Poetry Foundation...
That's surely more in common than "Playboy to the Poetry Foundation" ? Do you seriously believe that it's Apples and Oranges and the only thing in common between these two studios is that they do animation?
Ghibli has often been described as the Disney of Japan in the western media. This isn't an isolated comparison.
I was asking whether the goodness in a society is balanced by the badness, that the one develops because of the other, (whether extreme vs moderate, inconsiderate vs considerate, or mainstream vs underground) OR if they develop with no correlation between the two.
I don't have the answer, I was asking the question.
For what it's worth, I think Ghibli vs Disney is a super relevant comparison. Just as we can compare the porn industries on both sides - hentai vs... Wester porn. What I mean with this comparison is - Is there a correlation in that the worse off the bad extreme is, the better off the good extreme is, OR, is there no correlation?
---------------------------
Man I love Ghibli. My Neighbour Totoro remains one of my favourite movies of all time. Still brings tears. And speaking of that, Grave of Fireflies. Agh. So good.
I'd guess that in Japan you'd simply find a much wider scope of cultural content in animation than you do in America.
Although I'm not sure that the adult-only animations of America are significantly less upsetting than the adult-only animations of Japan. What do you think of "Mr Pickles" for instance?
Look I understand that the world is wrong in their portrayal of women. My point is that this community is supposed to help local devs. Why can't we focus on the good stuff and fight against the industry that is really the enemy.